MEpedia talk:Cleanup
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Using the cleanup tag[edit source | reply | new]
(Copying over from User talk:JenB to allow for extended discussion!)
Hey, theoretically on a wikibreak but saw there was concern about tagging pages for cleanup. As that does exist, I've tried to make instructions for it a little easier to find by creating MEpedia:Cleanup (which previously redirected to the list of entries already tagged). So far it's just a preliminary explanation (would be better to have all the how-to in one place instead of pointing to the Template page). But User:JaimeS I saw you had concerns about the cleanup tag--since we do have it (and a lot of pages are already tagged with it), I'm wondering if you have thoughts on particular ways we could improve the parameters for applying it that would make it more constructive? We could add them in to the above page of instructions and then also to the great MEpedia:Tutorial that User:Pyrrhus wrote.
Two questions that came to mind for me:
- Should the instructions page to include the project email address in case applying the tag is more than a concerned reader can manage? (On the one hand, that might generate really a lot of email; on the other hand, if you've never edited a wiki, you do have to learn quite a lot just to add the tag. Also some may be intimidated even if they are able: not everyone really has the sensibility that a wiki truly is theirs to edit just as much as anyone else!)
- Should we clarify about whether the tag is meant to communicate with editors or readers or both? I know that Wikipedia is very insistent that cleanup tags are not meant to communicate problems to readers, because the entire site is supposed to be read with a "buyer beware" approach, and they don't want the absence of a cleanup tag to have any implication the page is more valid that others. So there's emphasis on using tags only to help other editors find things to work on. I don't know if that's the approach we want, but a consideration.
Canele (talk) 16:01, June 25, 2019 (EDT)
- That’s fascinating that Wikipedia views “Cleanup” template tags and “Stub” template tags as communications to other editors rather than as disclaimers to readers! I guess that’s why they have a preference for placing those two tags at the bottom of pages instead of at the top of pages? My impression is that MEpedia uses those two tags mainly as disclaimers to readers, but I doubt there is any official policy to that effect. Maybe it’s because we’re a young wiki, or maybe our ultra-picky readers require more disclaimers? Or maybe we use those tags strategically to gently encourage readers into becoming editors? I’m not sure Jen’s talk page is the best place for this discussion, but this is an important discussion to have. Thanks, User:Canele!
- Pyrrhus (talk) 17:08, June 25, 2019 (EDT)
- Yeah it's a whole thing at Wikipedia--you can read more if you like here: [1] I do kind of share the view that it's better to have an emphatic general disclaimer than use cleanup tags for that purpose: we could never stay on top of thousands of articles to make certain each entry is always correctly tagged, and even if we had that kind of vol capacity, it'd still be any passing editor making the call, not necessarily a scientific expert. A strongly caveat emptor seems like the better way to go, and I do note that the disclaimer we have at the bottom of the page is much, much weaker than Wikipedia's. So that seems like one thing worth improving.
- I also wonder if we should consider placing that disclaimer somewhere more prominent, because I think you're definitely right, Pyrrhus, that MEpedia has a pretty specific readership and while we'll never please everyone, I think it's understandable some or many won't intuitively know that, though both are MEAction projects, MEpedia is a completely different undertaking than, say, Jaime's 2019 research summary. As I understand it, MEpedia was partly founded because WP's extremely strict sourcing policies on medical content did not allow for gathering the breadth of information that could be useful re: ME/CFS, but in adopting a far looser policy (plus having so many fewer people to review material), I do feel probably we have an according obligation to communicate: this is even less reliable than Wikipedia. Maybe that's putting it too strongly but, something that goes a bit farther toward making sure everyone who clicks over from Google can quickly get a clear understanding of what this is and isn't? Canele (talk) 15:38, June 26, 2019 (EDT)
- If anyone has any questions about where new editors learn about the "Cleanup" template tag and how much information is included along with the "Cleanup" template tag. I'll share what I know: The "Cleanup" template tag is introduced to new editors in Step 1 of the Tutorial, which encourages new editors to include an explanation when adding the "Cleanup" template tag to a page. For more specifics of the "Cleanup" template tag, "Step 1" of the Tutorial directs new editors to either MEpedia:Visual editor or MEpedia:Source editor as appropriate. For an example of a "Cleanup" template tag, see Action_for_ME. Currently, the "explanation" in the "Cleanup" template tag is suggested, not required, but most people add an explanation. Hope this helps.
- Pyrrhus (talk) 21:41, June 25, 2019 (EDT)
Re: Using the cleanup tag -- JaimeS (talk) 15:46, June 26, 2019 (EDT)[edit source | reply | new]
- I strongly agree with this --> "A strongly caveat emptor seems like the better way to go, and I do note that the disclaimer we have at the bottom of the page is much, much weaker than Wikipedia's. So that seems like one thing worth improving." Let's use Wikipedia's disclaimer at the very least.
- Can we take it word-for-word? It's pretty good. Otherwise we can link to it. -- JaimeS (talk) 15:46, June 26, 2019 (EDT)
- Yes, we can! I think for copyright purposes, we just need to note the permanent URL of the version we're copying in the edit summary as acknowledgement (in this case it's: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_disclaimer&oldid=860114216). Then we'd need an admin to make that change because the MEpedia:General disclaimer is a protected page, so if you're here and have a moment JaimeS, that'd be terrific. Here's a direct link to the source text so all the formatting will be taken care of: [2]
- Later maybe we'll have further, MEpedia-specific tweaks to make, and those can be proposed and discussed over on the talk page for the disclaimer, but I definitely agree this would be a vast (and fast!) improvement! Thanks! Canele (talk) 15:59, June 26, 2019 (EDT)
- Great! I added this to the top of the list of Admin tasks. Thanks guys!
- Pyrrhus (talk) 22:10, June 26, 2019 (EDT)
- I'm strongly against comparing accuracy here with Wikipedia, which has so many issues with highlighting minority points of view and the strong bias of many editors. We don't have any pages here that end up in edit wars, or marked as biased for example, and we don't prioritize opinionated articles over primary and secondary sources. I think a disclaimer that "accuracy cannot be guaranteed" is worthwhile, and maybe readers are responsible for checking the date that pages were last updated? The current general disclaimer messily links to Wikipedia twice - to explain what a wiki is and for "(permanent link)" - it's bad practice to use the word "link" in links. User:JaimeS User:Canele User:Pyrrhus User:Kmdenmark User:JenB
